Woodrow Wilson and the LusitaniaDecember 4, 2006
by William P. Meyers

In Mendocino County and in northern California
generally I constantly hear George W. Bush referred to as "the
worst President we've ever had." I have typically replied
that no, he is a pretty mediocre President, not qualified to be
compared to the truly criminal Presidents of American history.
The problem with these Bush bashers is that they do not know U.S.
history and they have been trained since childhood to interpret
it in ways that are contrary to their normal sense of ethics.
They are more infected by blind patriotism more than they know.

Last night I started reading the final
volume of Universal World History published by Wise &
Co in 1941 and learned some things I did not know and was reminded
of some things I did know about World War I. The basic story told
to children is that Germany violated Belgian neutrality to attack
France in 1914. Woodrow Wilson was a man of peace who had been
elected President in 1912; he tried to keep the U.S. out of the
war. But the Germans used their u-boats (primitive submarines)
to sink U.S. ships including the Lusitania. This forced President
Wilson to lead the U.S. into the war in 1917. The mighty U.S.
turned the tide against Germany; with our allies we won the war
in 1918. By the way, did I mention Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat?

But right and wrong are often found in
the details of a situation. Woodrow Wilson was a southern Democrat
who believed in racial segregation. He could have turned his attention
to fixing the very real problems of the U.S., but hey, that would
have taken a better understanding of humanity, a moral backbone,
and real courage. They don't usually let people with those characteristics
become President.

Woodrow Wilson appointed William Jennings
Bryan to be his Secretary of State. Yes, that would be the same
Bryan who had run for President in the 1880's as a Democrat Populist-lite,
famous for his Cross of Gold speech. Later he would appear as
the bible thumper in the Scopes Monkey trial. Bryan truly believed
in the U.S. staying neutral during World War I; neither side met
his moral criteria for military intervention. The British, in
addition to being the most brutal imperialist power the world
had ever seen, set up an illegal naval blockade of German ports.
That meant that U.S. ships carrying U.S. grain to sell to German
civilians were stopped at sea, illegally, by the British. We went
to war with the British in 1812 ostensibly over that exact issue
(really because we thought we could conquer Canada).

Wilson was not truly neutral; he favored
Britain, France, and Russia. He ignored the British blockade.
But he was really mad at the Germans because they tried (less
successfully) to enforce a similar blockade of Britain with their
u-boats. Bryan got so mad at Wilson's lack of neutrality that
he resigned from his post. The Germans were willing to negotiate
an end to their u-boat attacks and negotiate a peace; the British
were not.

So of all the ships sunk, why are we
supposed to remember the Lusitania? Apparently because a bunch
of U.S. citizens were on board, and died, when the Germans sunk
it. But again, look at the details. It was a British ship registered
with the British navy as a military cruiser. So it was a fair
target of war. The civilian passengers had been notified that
they were on a ship that would be a target for sinking. When sunk
off the coast of Ireland the Lusitania it had six million pounds
of ammunition aboard. The loss of civilian life was mainly due
to the quickness with which the ship sank, probably due to the
presence of ammunition.

The Lusitania was a pretext for war.
If you want to know what is really going on, you have to find
out the real reasons for things. Pretexts provide cover stories.
Usually they are real events, like the apparent Polish attack
on Germany that Hitler alleged started World War II. But they
are usually meant more to mislead than to inform.

I'll be coming back to evil U.S. presidents,
World War I and other wars in future blogs. Plus I'll be comparing
and contrasting these historical events to current events.